> Reading some of these disparaging posts makes me wonder if some of these > folks even know what Rhapsody is. The compelling aspect of Rhapsody is > *not* the ability to "buy" and burn music from it at $.79/track.
All-you-can-eat _streaming_ subscriptions are fine, I was talking about buying music. AFAIK the original poster was talking about Pay For Sure. Music subscription services that offer low-quality files for next to no money are definitely nice - for me they'll likely replace various p2p apps or newsgroups where I sample new music. As they are now I'd have to pay $ on top of the $$ for bandwidth to get something that doesn't play in foobar2000 or anything else I use, though. Not quite there yet, but close. The way to beat so called "music piracy" is not to sue people into oblivion. It's to pretend that p2p networks are a legal competitor. True, you can't win on price, but you can win on convenience - p2p is a hassle. $20 / month for unencumbered 128kbit/s VBR mp3s and maybe some editorial content with recommendations? I'm in. > Is this a complete replacement for buying cd's? If the recording companies think it helps their revenue in any way CDs will disappear fairly quickly. > But I can't afford to spend $50-$70/week on buying CD's I don't think I can keep it up, either :) Can't exactly afford it, but hey, I don't smoke :) C. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
